Alec Baldwin’s involuntary manslaughter trial came to a close two days after it started and almost three years after the deadly “Rust” movie set shooting that gave rise to the accusation against him. The actor was visibly moved by the judge’s eight words.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer informed Baldwin and his legal team in court on Friday afternoon, “Your motion to dismiss with prejudice is granted.” Baldwin, who was already shivering, took off his glasses, sobbed into his palm, and then embraced his wife, Hilaria.
Following nearly three years of back-and-forth legal arguments and prosecutor turnover, the verdict brought an end to Baldwin’s trial, during which he could have been sentenced to up to 18 months in prison and $5,000 in fines in connection with the October 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the Western film “Rust.”
On October 21, 2021, during the filming, Baldwin was practicing a “cross draw” at a church in New Mexico. He was pulling a gun from a holster on the side of his body opposite his draw hand. However, the prop gun accidentally fired a live round, killing Hutchins and injuring “Rust” director Joel Souza.
The prosecutors withheld information “possibly pointing to an external source of the live ammunition (prop supplier Seth Kenney) because the evidence would be favorable to Baldwin,” according to court documents filed by Baldwin’s defense team in a move to dismiss the case on Thursday.
Due to the evidence issue that was initially raised on Thursday, Marlowe Sommer sided with the defense on Friday and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, which means that the case cannot be reopened. This came after a chaotic hearing in which one special prosecutor testified and another special prosecutor, Erlinda Johnson, resigned from the prosecution team that same day.
In response to inquiries from defense lawyer Alex Spiro on Friday, special prosecutor Kari Morrissey expressed her disappointment with the dismissal while testifying under oath.
After the hearing on Friday, Morrissey stated, “I think the defense attorneys misunderstood the significance of the evidence, but I have to respect the court’s decision.”
This is what caused the Baldwin case to be dismissed.
Defense accuses prosecution of suppressing evidence
Marlowe Sommer, who had insisted on keeping the trial proceeding according to plan, was visibly upset early on Friday when she dismissed the jury and stopped the case’s testimony in order to consider Baldwin’s request to have his criminal charge dropped.
The judge described a dismissal with prejudice as a “very extreme sanction” before making her decision on Friday. She would have to consider every aspect of the request and “make a very good record as to why I’m seeing what I’m seeing.”
Baldwin’s team contended that the state detectives had not disclosed to the defense in an appropriate manner that a guy had brought a box of ammunition that was allegedly related to the case.
In its request, the defense argued that the state had violated the Brady rule—named after the 1963 Brady v. Maryland case—by “unilaterally withholding” material that could have been helpful to Baldwin’s trial. According to Cornell Law School, the rule mandates that prosecutors “disclose material, exculpatory information in the government’s possession to the defense.”
Marlowe Sommer clarified on Friday that the defendant must demonstrate that “the prosecution suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable to the accused, and the evidence was material to the defense” in order to prove a Brady breach.
Following Gutierrez-Reed’s conviction, retired police officer Troy Teske handed a package of ammo to the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office in March, according to testimony given by crime scene technician Marissa Poppell in court on Thursday. CNN first reported this story.
According to Poppell, Teske, an armorer’s father’s acquaintance, informed investigators that he believed the ammo might have anything to do with the “Rust” event.
In contrast, Poppell’s evidence indicates that the items were not examined to determine whether they matched the lethal bullet, were cataloged independently from Baldwin’s case, and were not included in the inventory of the “Rust” case.
On Friday, Marlowe Sommer declared that the Brady element’s proof-by-suppression requirement had been met. “The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office and the prosecution failed to give the defense access to the supplemental report or the opportunity to inspect the rounds supplied by Mr. Teske as evidence,” the judge stated. The judge added,
“The court cannot fix this situation.”
Whether the material concealed by the prosecution was beneficial to Baldwin, “either as exculpatory evidence or as means of impeachment,” is the second Brady element that Marlowe Sommer analyzed.
“This prong has been met. The judge declared that the evidence that was withheld favored the accused. “It could aid the defense and has also been introduced as impeachment evidence in this trial.”
Marlowe Sommer stated that because of the non-disclosure, it was not possible to evaluate the evidence’s exculpatory value at this late date. She next looked into whether the evidence that had been concealed was relevant to the case, and she found that it was.
Marlowe Sommer stated that Baldwin’s defense was unable to put the prosecution’s theory about where the live rounds that killed Hutchins originated to the test. “The late revelation of this evidence during the trial has hindered the effective use of evidence, affecting the overall fairness of the proceedings.”Sommer said.
The state withheld the information from Baldwin’s defense team, according to the court, who described the prosecutor’s actions as “intentional and deliberate.”
“This conduct comes so close to bad faith as to show signs of scorching,” stated Marlowe Sommer, “if it does not rise to the level of bad faith.”
The late evidence was “highly prejudicial” to Baldwin’s case, the judge agreed.
“This disclosure during the trial is so late that it undermines the defendant’s preparation for trial; the jury has been sworn, jeopardy has attached.”
Before granting the motion to dismiss the case, the judge further stated, “The jury trial has been irreversibly delayed by the state’s discovery violation. In order to maintain the fair administration of justice and the integrity of the legal system, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
